GURVINDER SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

GURVINDER SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Extension of time refused because delay was about three weeks, the applicant provided no valid reason for delay or non-receipt of the decision, and the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success in light of the Board's findings that the applicant's evidence was unpersuasive and that internal relocation was available.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 641
Parties
Applicant: Gurvinder Singh; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 March 2023
Case Number
HCAL542/2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal From Dismissal of Leave Application
Outcome
Application dismissed; extension of time to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Credibility Assessment, Internal Relocation, Service of Court Documents
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Non Refoulement Asylum Law Extension of Time Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Credibility Assessment Internal Relocation +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gurvinder Singh

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal From Dismissal of Leave Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant extension of time to appeal the dismissal of leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the intended appeal has a realistic prospect of success
  3. 3 Credibility of the applicant's evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time refused because delay was about three weeks, the applicant provided no valid reason for delay or non-receipt of the decision, and the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success in light of the Board's findings that the applicant's evidence was unpersuasive and that internal relocation was available.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; extension of time to appeal refused

Orders

  • Extension of time to appeal refused
  • Application dismissed